Ina Parlina, Jakarta – Legal analysts called on the Supreme Court to clarify its double verdict in the graft case of Sumita Tobing, the former director of state-owned TV broadcaster TVRI, if it wanted to maintain its credibility.
On Thursday, the Court sentenced Sumita to 18 months in prison despite the fact it had upheld a ruling by the Central Jakarta District Court acquitting her in August 2009.
Supreme Court chief justice Harifin A. Tumpa acknowledged the Court's website had made public a decision in 2009 upholding the Central Jakarta District Court ruling, but he brushed it off as an "error", insisting the latest ruling was correct.
University of Indonesia criminal law expert Rudy Satrio said the incident was shameful and urged the Court to clarify its decision. "The Court can't hear two appeals in the same case, let alone have two panels of judges issue different verdicts for one appeal," he told The Jakarta Post on Saturday. "This incident is scary. One of the two decisions is phony."
Sumita told the Post although she never received an official letter from the Court, she possessed a print-out of the 2009 verdict posted on the Court's official website, www.mahkamahagung.go.id. As of Saturday, the Web page was not accessible.
Sumita also received a notification of the 2009 ruling in a letter stating the prosecutors' appeal against her had been heard by the Court panel of justices consisting of Andi Abu Ayub Saleh, Djafni Djamal and Muhammad Taufik.
She said she received a second notification letter, stating justice Timur Manurung would preside over the hearing. "This was strange. They had confirmed the latest panel of justices would hear the same appeal," she said.
Thursday's ruling was issued by a different panel of justices, presided over by Artidjo Alkostar, who said he himself, M. Taufik, and Suryadjaya had reached a unanimous verdict to declare Sumita guilty.
Muhammadiyah University criminal procedural law expert Chairul Huda agreed with Rudy, saying the incident was absurd. "There cannot be two rulings for the same appeal," he said, adding the appellants could only file an appeal against a ruling in an appeal using a case review, or PK, which is the final stage of an appeal.
Chairul, however, said the statement on the Court's website could not be used as an "official" reference. Rudy added the error was a perfunctory excuse.
"There's no way the Supreme Court uploaded the wrong document and displayed the wrong ruling," he said, saying the two-year time gap between the two rulings was too large to be a mistake. "I urge Sumita to ask the Court to clarify the matter," Rudy said, adding she could request a copy of the verdict sent to the prosecutor in her case.
He emphasized the Court could face legal repercussions if Sumita could provide proof of the first Court ruling upholding her not-guilty verdict.
Sumita said she felt cheated by the Court's "double decisions".
"I never received a copy of Thursday's ruling. The Supreme Court all of a sudden told the public at a press conference they had sentenced me to prison."
In February 2009, the Central Jakarta District Court cleared Sumita of corruption in a TVRI production equipment procurement process. Prosecutors appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the verdict.
Media reports in 2003 said Sumita's corruption case was fabricated by four former TVRI directors after she implemented bureaucratic reforms at TVRI when she was president director between 2001 and 2003.